This subject was also discussed at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/34547/460032/post.ashx#460032.
"(1) THE WORD 'JEHOVAH' DOES NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENT ANY FORM OF THE NAME EVER USED IN HEBREW." [emphasis mine]
Hmmm. It is probably true that 'Jehovah' is not a transliteration of the Hebrew. There is good reason to believe the first vowel was an 'a' but it is possible the name was pronounced as three syllables rather than the two in 'Yahweh'. Of course, it is even more certain that THE WORD 'LORD' DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY FORM OF THE NAME, ACCURATE OR NOT. Every translator of the Hebrew bible knows that "lord" is not a translation of God's name in any sense, it is a substitution. That is what Jews do when they read God's name in the Bible...they substitute, and they know they are doing it. At least, in the Hebrew bible the name is still printed. If one believes that they are translating the word of God it really is quite blasphemous to remove his name in thousands of places. If the Committee believes that "the word 'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew" and that it is "almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced 'Yahweh' ", then they should use 'Yahweh', as the Jerusalem Bible does. I did not know this. I always thought Jehovah was an English derivative of Yahweh.
As we don't know how the Jews pronounced it, it seems quite dogmatic for the NRSV Committee to say that 'Jehovah' doesn't represent ANY form of the name EVER used in Hebrew. But the reason that God's name is translated as 'Jehovah' is that is the name the first English translators (e.g. Tyndale) used. If they had used 'Yahweh' or 'Henry' then it is unlikely 'Jehovah' would ever have been used. But that is how they translated his name and, as a result, that is his name in English. Earnest